Citation: Saed Al-Marzouq v R [2013] NSWCCA 112
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW
Date: 20 May 2013
Judges: Simpson J, Harrison J, Button J
Background
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to 18 offences committed over approximately six weeks in August and September 2010 while he was on parole. The offences included receiving stolen property, multiple counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and a series of aggravated break-and-enter offences targeting residential premises across Sydney's south-west.
The applicant was aged between 19 and 20 at the time of the offences. His personal circumstances were difficult: his father died when he was two years old and his mother died when he was twelve, an event he described as a turning point towards criminal conduct.
The sentencing judge in the District Court imposed an effective non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months and an overall head sentence of 6 years. His Honour applied a combined 50% discount for the applicant's early guilty plea and assistance to authorities, placing the notional starting point at 12 years.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentences imposed, both individually and in combination, were manifestly excessive
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the appeal and resentenced the applicant, finding that the original sentence was manifestly excessive. Harrison J (with whom Simpson J and Button J agreed) conducted the resentencing exercise, reducing both the overall head sentence and the effective non-parole period.
The court took into account the volume and nature of the offending, the fact it was committed while the applicant was on parole, and the substantial 50% discount already recognised by the sentencing judge for early plea and assistance. The court also considered the applicant's youth, difficult personal background, and subjective circumstances in arriving at the revised sentences.
Individual sentences were restructured and cascaded across the sentence period. The court maintained the principle of accumulation across the most serious offences while ensuring appropriate totality in the overall result.
Orders Made
The resentencing orders included, among others:
- On the receiving stolen property count (4 August 2010): non-parole period of 18 months commencing 10 August 2011, balance of term of 6 months expiring 9 August 2012
- On each of the two counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception (4 August 2010): non-parole period of 6 months commencing 10 April 2011, balance of 3 months expiring 9 January 2012
- On aggravated break and enter with intent (10 August 2010), taking into account Form 1 items: non-parole period of 12 months commencing 10 June 2011, balance of 6 months expiring 9 December 2012
- On aggravated break, enter and steal in company (20 August 2010): non-parole period of 12 months commencing 10 September 2011, balance of 6 months expiring 9 March 2013
- On aggravated break, enter and steal (5 September 2010): non-parole period of 12 months commencing 10 December 2011, balance of 6 months expiring 9 June 2013
- On aggravated break, enter and steal (6 September 2010): non-parole period of 12 months commencing 10 March 2012, balance of 6 months expiring 9 September 2013
- On aggravated steal in dwelling house and break out (14 September 2010): non-parole period of 12 months commencing 10 June 2012, balance of 12 months expiring 9 June 2014
Overall head sentence of 3 years and 4 months with an effective non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months; earliest parole eligibility date of 10 June 2013.
Key Takeaways
- A combined 50% discount for early guilty plea and assistance to authorities was accepted by both the sentencing court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, reflecting significant weight given to those mitigating factors in serious volume offending.
- In resentencing, the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the overall head sentence from 6 years to 3 years and 4 months, and the effective non-parole period from 3 years and 3 months to 2 years and 4 months, indicating the original sentence exceeded the appropriate range.
- Offending committed while on parole remained an aggravating feature explicitly reflected in the sentencing exercise, even after resentencing.
- Where an offender commits a large number of offences across a short period, the principle of totality requires the court to ensure that the cumulative effect of cascading sentences does not produce an outcome that is disproportionate when considered as a whole.
- The applicant's youth and significant personal hardship, including the early deaths of both parents, were recognised as relevant subjective factors, though they did not outweigh the seriousness of the sustained course of offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No specific legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata provided.